This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Robert Lentz is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
The Catholic Church would not tolerate a practicing homosexual cleric. The fellow describes himself as belonging "to the Byzantine rite". I suspect he is a Franciscan only in his own mind. - Schrandit (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a "practicing homosexual", and he is a Franciscan. He joined the Order of Friars Minor, and as recently as February 2009 he was stationed with Holy Name Province, and was teaching at St. Bonaventure University for a while.[1]--Cúchullaint/c 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article with the new information. Any further changes to his position as a Franciscan (or to anything else, really), will require a source.--Cúchullaint/c 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange--an edit war with nothing on the talk page. I have locked the article for three days so youse brothers can duke it out here. You may find some grammatical commentary on my talk page, "Possessive forms", which I wrote before I even looked at this article or its participants. I have warned one of the fringe participants, Johnny4truth (talk·contribs), to stop promoting the subject: if they do that again they should be indef-blocked, and the Lady and I will be happy to do so. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an edit war to justify protection. At any rate, sure, let's talk about it. WP:HONORIFICS should be avoided, especially when they're just hard to understand appreviations. I don't care about the possessives.--Cúchullaint/c 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bro. so hard to understand? It's used frequently in the names of businesses, usually in the plural, which should be more complicated. It's even commonly used as a form of address among younger Americans. Additionally, my understanding is that what can be shown in an infobox is more expansive than in an article. Can we agree on the use of his Ordinal initials? Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, abbreviations like "Bro." and "The Rev." are unnecessary and the abbreviation makes them hard to understand for anyone who doesn't know what they are already. I didn't remove the ordinal titles from the lead. However none of them need to be in the infobox.--Cúchullaint/c 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary is another matter, which is one of personal style, and you aren't giving a good reason for not including the information in the infobox, other than your own preference. Again, Bro. or Bros. is a common usage in corporate names. What is this difficulty to which you refer? If the abbreviation is the problem, the full word can be used. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the one adding or re-adding the material, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it. I already gave my "good reason" several times: WP:HONORIFIC, which specifically says "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name." We already explain that he's a Franciscan friar in the article text.--Cúchullaint/c 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cuchullain, I hope you know I don't like to be heavy-handed. The moment we have agreement here I'll unprotect. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about we use them once, in the lead, linked to the explantory articles, and that's all? What seems similar enough to me is doing exactly with people who have been knighted by the British Empire. LadyofShalott 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once in the lead is in compliance with the MOS. I don't think his title is used elsewhere. I have been discussing simply the infobox. I'd be satisfied with that. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Drmies, it's cool, at any rate it forces us to talk about it. Lady, per WP:HONORIFIC we should avoid the "Bro." (or "Brother") entirely, we don't use it even for Francis of Assisi himself. The ordinal after the name (O.F.M) is fine in the first use and already links to the actual order he belongs to.--Cúchullaint/c 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cuchullain--"Moving right along" was my shorthand for "y'all seem to be working this out; I've unprotected". Thanks, and thanks for your many, many improvements to out beautiful project, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cuchullain, I don't understand what you mean when you say that an honorific is not used for Francis of Assisi. The title "St." is used in the infobox. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, Drmies, and thank you. Daniel, I was referring to Lady's "first use" comment: no pre-name honorific is used at Francis of Assissi or the vast majority of other related articles in the intro. And we don't use "Bro." for Francis in any event; "Saint" is far more common.--Cúchullaint/c 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not entirely accurate. The honorific is used in the infobox, which is what this whole discussion is about, since you have edited that section twice to remove Lenz' title from there. Are you saying that "Saint" is more acceptable as a title there than "Bro." or "Brother" because of its more frequent usage? Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to another editor's comment, as I said. On the infobox, I've repeatedly made it clear I don't think the honorific should be included. Yes, "Saint" is more common in infoboxes, but we don't include minor honorifics like "Mrs.", "Mr.", or "Dr." - or "Bro."--Cúchullaint/c 19:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other honorifics, which you label "minor", are automatic in our society, thus not of any informative value. (Though those for women can still be contentious. What say you, Lady, do you expect to be always titled "Mrs." by strangers?) This is not true for a Franciscan friar, whom people would be far more likely to address as "Father". Since this is an encyclopedic source, what seems better suited to that goal is giving the title which applies to him. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
